May 27, 2007

The Berger Smear...Again

Allegations continue that during his preparation for testimony before the 9/11 commission, Berger destroyed documents that would have greatly embarrassed Mr. Clinton over his devil-may-care approach to terrorism.

And The Trib is trying to have it's own fact here. Why? Well, let's take a look at the facts (the actual facts, not the allegations of facts from the right-wing press). According to the New York Times:

In 2003, Mr. Berger spent several days at the National Archives reviewing classified material as the Clinton administration’s designated liaison to the Sept. 11 commission. He later admitted that he took and destroyed several versions of a classified report prepared in 2000 on the so-called millennium terrorist plots, although the commission had copies of the same reports.

So we called Justice Department Public Integrity chief prosecutor Noel Hillman, who assured us that Mr. Berger did not deny any documents to history. "There is no evidence that he intended to destroy originals," said Mr. Hillman. "There is no evidence that he did destroy originals. We have objectively and affirmatively confirmed that the contents of all the five documents at issue exist today and were made available to the 9/11 Commission."

So whatever "embarrassing" information found in the reports is still in the reports, right? And those reports are still in the National Archives, right? And yet, The Trib is still at it, implying a cover-up when the evidence doesn't support it.

The Duke Lacrosse rape case is irrelevant here - but thanks for trying to deflect the story anyway.It is relevant if quoting the New York Times as a "accurate" source The NY times coverage of Duke Lacrosse rape case is a textbook example of bias and political correctness. Facts and evidence be damned, they had a class/race narrative to establish.

And pray tell, HTTT, what is the bias of Justice Department Public Integrity chief prosecutor Noel Hillman? Is he lying too? Of course he is, notice how he parsed his statment. If you were up to become a judge and needed confirmation from the Senate, what would you say? Even if he is a Republican, you can see his self interests lie with being a judge more than smearing Sandy Burgerler. Not that he can put the creep in prison (that might be worth a judgeship), thats not his job. Anonymous #2

Maria: Did you follow Heir's link? It IS sufficient in it's rabid Wingnuttiness, but it doesn't support his position.

I have noticed that for people of a Rightist persuasion, there seems to be a fairly significant chasm separating premise from conclusion, fact from opinion, and fiction from reportage. See, for an excellent example, the justification for the invasion of Iraq. For another, examine their justification for staying there. For a third, research the superstitions of their leading candidate for president.